[smallerthanyou]

Originally Posted by tbh

he can never access the money - it'll be managed by the courts.

When he's 18 he can.

Edit: Oh wait if he's mentally incapacitated then he won't. It's a horrific case. The parents apply to the courts for the money as needed.

[manutd]

Originally Posted by tbh

her punishment is that for the rest of her life, she has to live with the fact that she caused a crash which crippled her son.

I wouldn't swap for five times the amount.

I know where you coming from, but she was driving without insurance, i have no sympathy for her but do for the boy.

It's just me and for everyone else who pay out for insurance will feel the pain with increase insurance policy.

[UrbanSea]

I can't get over this. This is truly unbelievable.

The mother is uninsured. She's responsible for the crash, yet gets away scott free. If it was another car who crashed into her, uninsured and had a momentary lapse in concentration, they'd be in prison for 5+ years.


Such a joke the legal system is here. Just because she is his mother doesn't mean she should be treated differently

[doubletrouble?]

when we renew our car insurance something like 2% goes towards the MIBI to cover uninsured drivers. everyone pays this levy as far as i know. right we get the story about the kid being paid €11.5m which i think is a bit excessive but what about the payments made to the other occupants of the car she hit in total these would far exceed the €11.5m also i'd love to know what penalties she received for careless/dangerous driving and being uninsured.is she off the road?.

[phasers]

will the settlement pay for a carer or will the mother also claim carer's allowance do you think? not judging just wondering.


I just saw the ma on the news smiling for photographers standing next to her son. Looked a bit weird given the circumstances.

[seamus]

Originally Posted by prinz

The mother was solely at fault. There is no way she should benefit to the tune of a single cent from this, if the mother is full time carer, and the settlement is going towards rewarding her for that care, I think that's wrong tbh.

Tbh, for every minute of the rest of her life that she's going to spend caring for the son she has crippled, I imagine she would glady give up every penny she takes from the fund if it would give the child back his future.
It would take an exceptionally cold-hearted woman to see this settlement and think, "Woohoo, party time!".

In reality if you consider that the child will need 24/7 care for at least fifty years, along with the associated medical equipment and building modifications, I'm not sure if there would be any money left over for the parents to "benefit" from, aside from day-to-day expenses.

Being paid a subsistence to spend every waking moment of the rest of your life caring for the person you crippled, sounds like a punishment to me, not a reward

[Seachmall]

Originally Posted by manutd

i have no sympathy for her but do for the boy.

The boy isn't in a wheelchair because she didn't have insurance. He's in a wheelchair because the mother had an accident. Possibly an accident that could happen to any of us (without more details we can't know exactly what happened).

Now she has to live with the fact that a single split-second lapse of concentration has destroyed her sons life, which has absolutely nothing to do with her having insurance or not.

I don't see how anyone couldn't have sympathy for her.

[manutd]

Originally Posted by Biggins

Well for a start, because if you don't its a criminal offence.
You should be buying independent insurance if only to help stop draining the state and other companies of such funds?

The sad thing is that some people couldn't give a f*ck about it been a criminal offence, but have no problem suing for money and people of Ireland who do pay for insurance pay for it.

[tbh]

Originally Posted by UrbanSea

I can't get over this. This is truly unbelievable.

The mother is uninsured. She's responsible for the crash, yet gets away scott free. If it was another car who crashed into her, uninsured and had a momentary lapse in concentration, they'd be in prison for 5+ years.


Such a joke the legal system is here. Just because she is his mother doesn't mean she should be treated differently

I've been thinking about this.

Say it was another uninsured driver that crashed into the car, I'd have no problem with the child being awarded the money. the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash doesn't change the fact that the child is an innocent victim. The money isn't going on large screen TVs and swimming pools, it's to provide care for him for the rest of his life - so I've no problem with the award.

the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash muddies the water slightly, but looking at it logically:

• She's his full time carer - sending her to prison just hurts the child
• She caused the crash - far greater punishment than any prison sentence
• It's not like she's going to be benefitting materially from the award - she can't spend it any way she wants, even if she wanted to, as the money is managed by the courts

so while it is a strange situation, I'd have to say that the courts did the right thing all round.

[phasers]

what does 'lapse in concentration' actually mean? Was she fiddling with the radio or something?

[UrbanSea]

Originally Posted by Seachmall

The boy isn't in a wheelchair because she didn't have insurance. He's in a wheelchair because the mother had an accident. Possibly an accident that could happen to any of us (without more details we can't know exactly what happened).

Now she has to live with the fact that a single split-second lapse of concentration has destroyed her sons life, which has absolutely nothing to do with her having insurance or not.

I don't see how anyone couldn't have sympathy for her.

She was an uninsured driver. I have zero sympathy for her, it's the boy I have sympathy for. He has a pathetic existence for the rest of his life due to the negligence of his mother. If she had no insurance she should not have been driving.

[tbh]

Originally Posted by phasers

what does 'lapse in concentration' actually mean? Was she fiddling with the radio or something?

distracted by animals at the side of the road apparently. There but for the grace of god, etc.

[Seachmall]

Originally Posted by UrbanSea

She was an uninsured driver. I have zero sympathy for her, it's the boy I have sympathy for. He has a pathetic existence for the rest of his life due to the negligence of his mother. If she had no insurance she should not have been driving.

If she was insured would she have your sympathy?

[mikemac1]

Afaik, two percent of every motor insurance premium is set aside and goes to the MIBI

So everyone with a motor insurance policy will be partially paying for cases such as these

Two per cent isn't a lot but for with every motor policy in the State, the national fund soon builds up

I'm happy to be corrected but I'm pretty certain I read two percent for this

[UrbanSea]

Originally Posted by tbh

I've been thinking about this.

Say it was another uninsured driver that crashed into the car, I'd have no problem with the child being awarded the money. the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash doesn't change the fact that the child is an innocent victim. The money isn't going on large screen TVs and swimming pools, it's to provide care for him for the rest of his life - so I've no problem with the award.

the fact that it was his mother that caused the crash muddies the water slightly, but looking at it logically:

• She's his full time carer - sending her to prison just hurts the child
• She caused the crash - far greater punishment than any prison sentence
• It's not like she's going to be benefitting materially from the award - she can't spend it any way she wants, even if she wanted to, as the money is managed by the courts

so while it is a strange situation, I'd have to say that the courts did the right thing all round.

That's a good argument, but the law is the law. At the end of the day she has her freedom, while her son is confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life, able to do nothing for himself.

That money may be used for other full time carers, she may not be his main carer after that award. This is mere speculation however.